 
|
Child Support Modification Jurisdiction
Learn more about Child Support Modification Jurisdiction.
A child support order must be registered in the state in which the obligor parent resides and file a motion to amendThis legal note is from Marshal S. Willick, Esq., 3591 E. Bonanza Road, Ste 200, Las Vegas, NV 89110. If you are receiving these legal notes, and do not wish to do so, let me know by emailing this back to me with "Leave Me Alone" in the subject line. Please identify the email address at which you got the email. Your State would be helpful too. In the mean time, you could add this to your email blocked list. And, of course, if you want to tell me anything else, you can put anything you want to in the subject line. Thanks. B> 2. The benefit to be payable to the Alternate Payee shall be calculated by means of a formula as follows: All service credits accrued by Member through and including [DATE OF DIVORCE OR TERMINATION OF SERVICE], as the numerator, and all service credits accrued as the denominator, multiplied by one-half. Any withdrawals from the retirement system shall be divided between the Member and the Alternate Payee in accordance with the same formula. The Court held that NRS 125.140 (no longer in existence) permitted a court granting a divorce, in the exercise of its sound discretion, to order that child support payments bind the father’s estate. The Court further held that decree is to be held to impose upon the father a greater duty of child support than that required by the common law, the decree must specifically state that such obligation is to survive the death of the obligor. Id. at 487. The The property in question was Lucini & Associates, a closely held subchapter "S" corporation. When the parties were married in 1966, the husband was president and majority stockholder of the company. During the marriage, the husband, together with the other stockholders and employees, were paid salaries. All excess capital was dispersed annually. Also, during the marriage, the husband decreased his ownership in the company from 51 percent to 30.08 percent. The district court determined that the husband received full value in salary, profit distributions and fringe benefits, and that there was no community interest. The Court noted that it had previously adopted the Pereira and Van Camp methods of apportionment. The Court acknowledged that in Cord v. Neuhoff, 94 Nev. 21, 26, 573 P.2d 1170, 1173 (1978), it held that the preferred method was that suggested in Pereira "unless the owner of the separate estate could establish that a different allocation was more likely to accomplish justice." The Court also acknowledged that in Wells v. Bank of Nevada, 90 Nev. at 195, 522 P.2d at 1017, that it held apportionment pursuant to the Van Camp method was proper to achieve substantial justice, when "the community was fully compensated for the . . . community labor through [the husband’s] annual salary and related benefits." Id. at 214-15. The Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion is using the Van Camp method of apportionment as the record supported the court finding that community was compensated through the husband’s annual salary and benefits. The powers and procedures of courts to interpret divorce court orders, when expectations embedded in the orders prove inaccurate, varies from one jurisdiction to another. The problem is often seen in court orders issued during active duty that projected a date certain for payments to start to the former spouse, or made reference to "twenty years of service," etc. The standard form clauses contain language permitting the resolution of such problems. SUP> While, of course, it is not certain that the proposed amendment will in fact be approved at the next election, this Court has traditionally given deference to the Legislature’s amendments to provisions that can be seen as seeking to clarify, rather than substantively amend, existing provisions that are arguably ambiguous, going so far as to hold that such technical corrective amendments are to be considered retroactively effective.12 The portion of the Senate Joint Resolution clarifying that "the next general election" means the next general election over 12 months in the future fits that definition. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court vacated the order changing custody because the father did not receive notice that the issue of child custody was before the district court, he did not receive a full and fair hearing, and the district court did not consider or apply the correct standard before it changed custody. The Court held that due process requires that notice be given before a party’s substantial rights are affected. The notice, that the father received, gave no indication that child custody was going to be at issue. Notice in the moving papers that the non custodian seeks to alter visitation is not sufficient. The Court reiterated that litigants in a custody battle have the right to a full and fair hearing concerning the ultimate disposition of a child, which at minimum includes support of the elements underlying the change prior to such a change, with an opportunity to the custodian to disprove those elements. Here, the 30 minute hearing in which the father was not allowed to present any witnesses, and in which the mother presented no evidence to rebut, was not sufficient. As noted by Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." It seems to me essential to have a neutral advisory presence in the legislature to prevent the kind of selfish stupidity exemplified by A.B. 292 from becoming the law of this state. We owe it to the system we serve, and to our collective clients, strong and weak, rich and poor, to prevent the statutory law from being twisted to serve the purposes of a few political insiders rather than the public generally. In temporary orders at the beginning of the case, the parties were awarded joint physical and legal custody. The mother sought permission to move. The district court ruled that the request to move had to be denied as it would make a joint physical custody arrangement impossible. The Court concluded that the move cases were not limited to the parent who has primary physical custody. The Court held the move statute applied to situations in which temporary custody had been established. The Court should have considered the factors outlined in Schwartz in determining the appropriate custody arrangement. The Court should also focus on the availability of reasonable alternative visitation as outlined in Jones. This legal note is from Marshal S. Willick, Esq., 3591 E. Bonanza Road, Ste 200, Las Vegas, NV 89110. If you are receiving these legal notes, and do not wish to do so, let me know by emailing this back to me with "Leave Me Alone" in the subject line. Please identify the email address at which you got the email. Your State would be helpful too. In the mean time, you could add this to your email blocked list. And, of course, if you want to tell me anything else, you can put anything you want to in the subject line. Thanks. There were some variations between what public agencies and private attorneys did that could create differences when interest was being calculated. For example, back in the days when URESA was the controlling interstate law (now replaced by UIFSA), one distinction between the District Attorneys’ and Family Courts’ methodologies was the proper first application of an incoming payment. The IV-D methodology required application of payments to present support first, but Nevada case law required application of payments to the oldest arrearage first.4 i) Income share. "Income share" means a parent's percentage of the combined monthly gross income of both parents. The income share of a parent is that parent's gross income divided by the combined gross incomes of the parties. In a few places, however, cases indicate that a service member may "un-consent" to court jurisdiction over the retirement issue alone.4 Except in those locations, there generally is not a jurisdictional issue in dealing with the retirement benefits in the divorce action so long as the member is the plaintiff - or a defendant who does not raise the issue. It seems possible that the new regulations may cause reconsideration of cases such as Tucker, since it represents the enforcing agencies’ interpretation of a statute; if so, the "un-consent" cases may be overturned upon challenge. In March 1973, the husband filed for divorce. The wife filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that the parties had acquired community property. The husband, in his reply, admitted that allegation and only denied the amount of the balance of the savings and checking accounts. In August 1973, the husband died. The son filed a probate proceeding to determine the status of certain real and personal property seeking to have the property declared to be community property and subject to administration. The district court held that the joint tenancy deeds conveying all the real property involved to the husband and wife as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common, with full rights of survivorship, did not without other clear and certain independent evidence overcome the presumption that such property purchased with community funds was community property. Williams v. Williams, 97 P.3d 1124, 120 Nev. Adv. Rep. 64 (Sept. 13, 2004) In August 26, 1973, the husband went through a marriage ceremony with the wife. At that time, the wife believed that she was divorced from her prior husband. However, neither one had obtained a divorce. The parties believed they were legally married and lived together, as husband and wife, for 27 years. In March 2000, the husband discovered that wife was not divorced from her prior husband at the time of the marriage ceremony. In August 2000, the parties separated. In February 2001, the husband filed a complaint for annulment. The wife answered and counterclaimed for one-half of the property and spousal support as a putative spouse. During the 27 years that the parties believed themselves to be married, the wife was a homemaker and a mother. Between 1981 and 1999, Marcie was a licensed childcare provider and earned about $460 a week. At trial, the wife had G.E.D. and earned $8.50 an hour at a retirement home. She was 63 years old and lived with her daughter because she could not afford to live on her own. The district court found that the wife had limited ability to support herself. The district court also concluded that both parties believed they were legally married, acted as husband and wife, and conceived and raised two children. The district court granted the annulment and awarded the wife one-half of all the jointly-held property and spousal support. The parties property was divided so that each received assets of approximately the same value. The district court ordered the husband to pay $500 per month for a period of four years as apparent spousal support. The Court also "expressed no view regarding the ability of a participant or beneficiary to bring a cause of action under ERISA where the terms of the plan fail to conform to the requirements of ERISA and the party seeks to recover under the terms of the statute." A fundamental rule of statutory interpretation is that the unreasonableness of the result produced by one among alternative possible interpretations of a statute is reason for rejecting that interpretation in favor of another that would produce a reasonable result. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court noted that NRS 125.510(2) described when a joint custody arrangement may be revisited and modified by the court. The Court also noted that Murphy v. Murphy, 84 Nev. 710, 447 P.2d 664 (1968) only described when a modification to a primary custody agreement is warranted. The Court further noted that district courts were vested with broad discretion concerning child custody matters citing to NRS 125.510 and Rooney v. Rooney, 109 Nev. 540, 853 P.2d 123 (1993). That court had defined "goodwill" as the value of a business or practice that exceeds the combined value of the net assets used in the business. And it specifically contemplated that the goodwill in a professional practice might be attributable to the business enterprise itself by virtue of its existing arrangements with suppliers, customers or others, and its anticipated future customer base due to factors attributable to the business. However, the May court also found that such goodwill might be attributable to the individual owner’s personal skill, training or reputation. Where the member accepted the CBS/REDUX choice before the divorce, additional questions must be asked. Was the spouse aware of the election? Either way, did the spouse already obtain benefits from the cash pay-out? Who actually received what benefit from the cash payout would probably determine the equities of what compensation (if any) is due to the former spouse. The Nevada Supreme Court, citing Walsh v. Walsh21 and Carrell v. Carrell,22 held that pension payments cannot be classified as temporary spousal support, because such support is subject to possible future modification. The U.S. Supreme Court majority reversed, holding that the USFSPA did not constitute a total repudiation of the pre-emption it had declared in McCarty. Since the statute defined "disposable pay" as what was divisible, and excluded disability pay from that definition, the Court concluded that state courts could divide only non-disability military retired pay.1 The dissent echoed the conclusions reached earlier by the California Supreme Court in Casas v. Thompson - that the gross sum of retirement benefits was available to the state divorce court for division.2 One of the most important variables in determining the proper amount of child support is the form of custody ordered by the court. Embedded in the child support guidelines of all the states is the presumption that the court will order "standard visitation" of 20% overnight visitation with the non-custodial parent. This 20% figure is based on 73 days: every other weekend (52 days), plus two weeks in summer (14 days), plus Mother's Day or Father's Day (1 day), plus Thanksgiving or Christmas (2 days), plus birthdays (2 days), plus a miscellaneous day (1 day). See Karen Czapanskiy, "Child Support, Visitation, Shared Custody and Split Custody," in Child Support Guidelines: The Next Generation 43, 44 (U.S. Dep't Health & Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, 1994); Karen Czapanskiy, Child Support and Visitation: Rethinking the Connection, 20 Rut.-Cam. L.J. 619 (1989). When the parents have some form of shared physical custody that is over this 20%, the presurnption embedded in the guidelines no longer applies, and an adjustment to the support order should be made. You can find Child Support Modification Jurisdiction The Marren and Page Case List Grey v Grey Division of Just Community Property or Other Property Considered Custody Visitation and Temporary Support Issues FINALLY an SBP premium-shifting calculator for military cases revised What Almost Happened to Child Support in Nevada and Why We Still Have to Fi What Almost Happenend to Child Support in Nevada and Why We Still Have to F Ogawa Amicus Brief CONCLUSION Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Th Marren and Page Case Lisst Las Vegas family law divorce specialist The Deflected Attempt to Conform the Law to Error Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section X Subsection A The Marren and Page Case List Pelletier v Pelletier Child Support Modification Jurisdiction available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Conclusions as to Disability Awards Hearing on the Petition for Return Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section II Subsection Las Vegas FERS expert lawyer Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section II Subsection |